论文部分内容阅读
2012年,因不服商标局(2011)商标异字第48245号关于第6337775号“萬豪盛匯”商标异议裁定,异议人向国家商标评审委员会(以下简称为“国家商评委”)提出异议复审申请,国家商评委作出裁决,驳回了前述商标在“养老院;日间托儿所;出租椅子、桌子、桌布和玻璃器皿”等与引证商标指定服务不类似的项目上的申请。笔者认为,本案涉及到的商标近似判断有以下特点值得我们注意。引证商标的显著性和知名度在商标近似判断中会被适当考虑在上述商标的异议复审案中,国家商评委经审查后认为:“被异议商标(即:”萬豪盛匯“)完整包含了在先商标中的显著识别文字”万豪“。异议人提供的在案证
In 2012, the opponent filed a lawsuit against the State Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (hereinafter referred to as ”the State Trademark Review and Adjudication Board“) for not agreeing to the Trademark Office (2011) Trademark Opposition No. 48245 concerning the trademark opposition No. 6337775 ”Marriott Rewards“ Put forward the application for objection review, and the State Commercial Judging Committee ruled that the aforesaid trademark was rejected on applications such as ”nursing home; day nursery school; rental of chairs, tables, tablecloths and glassware “ and other items not similar to the designated service of quoted trademark. The author believes that the cases involved in the approximation of trademarks have the following characteristics worthy of our attention. The significance and reputation of the citation mark will be appropriately considered in the judgment of the approximate mark. In the opposition review of the above-mentioned mark, after reviewing the said mark, the State Trademark Review and Adjudication Board held that: ”The integrity of the objection mark (ie:“ Marriott Rewards ”) Contains the prominent logo in the previous mark “Marriott ” On the case provided by the opponent